Friday, April 30, 2010

The “Us against them” mentality will always be the adverse problems posed for true peaceful activism. Anyone who would use “Us vs. Them” for political gain should be alienated and ostracized immediately as a provocateur.

In the week of the release of this film, I had re-watched the original “police state” trilogy to review, as well as attending a local protest of the Federal Reserve and IRS. At this rally, one of the organizers began to bullhorn IRS employees that they should feel ashamed and quit their job. This is one example of the “Us vs. Them” mentality that we need to avoid. This is the problem that will undoubtedly increase the use of the police state.

What is the Police State? Alex really doesn't use his films to define the term, but rather show you what it could look like in your town. A “Police State” is one where virtually all activity in a geographical location is governed by an authoritarian force. In the United States, where freedoms and checks and balances prevent this, it is an extreme occurrence which an extreme emergency can be declared where those in charge of governing the area claim that chaos, or the potential for chaos, has grown too large to control while allowing for normal freedoms. This is commonly referred to as “Martial Law” or suspension of government.

This film begins outlining several executive orders by which the procedure for Martial Law is established. E.O.#s 10990, 10995, 10997, 10998, 10999, 11000, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11051, 11310,11049, 11921 are explained, however, you can research those. Needless to say, that combined, these executive orders provide for the government takeover of every resource and economic sector, including movement and housing. Alex also references Presidential Security Directive 51, which has remained largely a secret, event though representative Peter DeFazio tried to alert Americans to its existence and the secrecy of the executive. These powers include the “Continuity of Government” project of the US government, by which the United States would, during time of extreme emergency, not be governed by the Constitution or our elected representatives, but by an “Emergency” government with emergency powers. A new executive order establishing a federalized “Council of Governors” essentially pushing federalism at the state level, would also provide for a plan for emergency response. Alex also covers the Civilian Inmate Labor Program and DOD Directive1404.10. Please research the government documents listed in this paragraph if you need more information.

There you go. Not a Conspiracy Theory, the plans for martial law and imprisonment exist. The only debates are:A. Do you agree with “Emergency” (increased) powers in times of perceived chaos?B. What types of events are “emergencies” that could initiate the declaration? andC. What would martial law look like and would it negatively affect the people?

That's where the rest of this film comes in. Bankers telling our congress that if they voted against the bailout that Martial Law would be necessary is financial terrorism. The financial crisis has brought outrage from several interested people. The protests exist, as I mentioned my attendance above. However, what happened in Pittsburgh in 2009 did not make most news outlets. More on that in a sec.

If Martial Law was a duck, most people would say that the evidence of a controlling mad government is just a quacking, waddling, and feather covered teddy bear, not a duck.

Alex goes into some of the Military working in the homeland in violation of posse comatatus, as well as the Northcom force, reported to be targeted at 40,000 US troops trained to operate in the homeland, including quelling insurrection.

The Infowars crew were filming these efforts in Pittsburgh during the 2009 G-20 Protests. Jason Bermas' inability to get these members of Military to define posse comatatis shows how dire things can be.

“Order out of Chaos” is a commonly known phrase of people aware of authoritarian tactics of globalist leaders. Government will always claim that their control tactics are to restore order to a chaotic situation. The problem people have with this, is the seemingly unequal target of these tactics toward people who would be in opposition to federal government, globalist, or elitist goals.

The first time I'd seen the L.R.A.D. lesser-lethal crowd control device was in the Jon Ronson documentary “Crazy Rulers of the World” where he was outlining how governments use unusual torture tactics that start out with seemingly no military application. The L.R.A.D. is a device that blasts brain piercing noises in a targeted direction. A Lock-down of the streets of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania using Military, rows of Police, and the L.R.A.D. was clearly a display of Martial Law.

So what was their justification? Perceived chaos? We see “Anarchists” throwing things, breaking things, wearing masks. Again, instead of targeting the bad apples, lets declare an Emergency and lock the place down of all constitutional activities. Alex's previous films as well as a clip of a few anarchists here, provide interesting evidence that some of these “Agents Provocateur” could perhaps be government employees.

The L.R.A.D. also blasts an interesting announcement. “This is an unlawful assembly”

Amendment I - U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law.. ..abridging.. ..the freedom.. ..of the people, peaceably to assemble..”

Clearly this was a Constitution-free zone.

The announcement tells people to “Leave the area immediately”, however, as Alex shows us, the police just corral the people into one area blocking from all sides. A free state Philadelphia was not.

Alex also covers the interesting case of Hardin, Montana. A private, foreign-run, “security” firm known as “American Police Force” takes over a local prison facility, and begins driving around town in vehicles labeled “Hardin Police.”

The most interesting thing about this film is how it clearly outlines the issue of the Christmas 09' Underwear “Bombing” attempt, as well as the concurrent push for body-scanning machines at airports. Alex, in interviews with Webster Tarpley does the job that the media told us our government failed to do, and that is “Connect the Dots” surrounding this attack. Alex also shows the differences between the incontrovertible eyewitness testimony vs. the several different official government stories of this event including the State Department telling Detroit News that even the Federal Government was involved in allowing it to happen.

The Body-Scanners are also exposed as Michael Chertoff's health-destroying, submission ritual, money making machine.

Alex also covers the important propaganda issues of the MIAC report and Glenn Beck's lies as well as the Pentagon writing news stories and the FCC's ability to take over media networks.

This film takes the styles and focuses of the original “Police State” trilogy and pumps them into a 2009-2010 alert. This film also resolves some of the contextual problems that the first three films suffered.

Information: 5 stars – This film covers the push for a controlled society, covering all of the available news and information from recent years. It's jam packed full of footage, eyewitness accounts, news reports, and government documents.

Source Documentation: 4 Stars – While this film has cured most of the contextual issues of the previous films, there are a few issues where skeptics might feel that some information is not related to the overall message.

Presentation Method: 2 Stars – This was basically clips from the Alex Jones Show, inter-cut with clips of what he is talking about. He would have been served well to take the time to re-explain some of these issues specifically for the film, at times some contextual stuff from that day's show is mentioned, which does this film injustice.

Visuals/Sound: 2 Stars – Unfortunate that the special graphics used must have been created for big screen HDTVs because it seems that it is very hard to read important stuff on the screen at key times. Also included is a segment where two computer voices alternate layered over loud music, which makes it nearly impossible to understand what they say. The only bonus this film does get, is the fact that while watching it on my surround sound, the L.R.A.D. came on and my wife started throwing things at me because it was hurting her ears. Congratulations on bringing the experience home for me, I respect that if others have that experience, they might understand how negative the L.R.A.D. is.

Political & Social Spectrum: 4 Stars – He would get 5 stars if he did not choose to label some issues as “conservative.”

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: 1 Star – Consti-pollutionWhile the information is good, again, there is little to no direction on how we the people can change this stuff. He didn't even do as good of a job of calling for people to spread this information. We also need to spread the word of the importance of citizen journalism when events like those in this movie happen.

Overall Wake-Up-Ability: 4 Stars – Not quite as good as “Washington You're Fired” at emphasizing the issues of government power grabs, but quite honestly, this might be one of the few “Movies” that actually shows clashes between police and protesters in recent years, which gives it a unique quality. As such, I honestly would rather to have seen some coverage of DNC/RNC 08' footage or RNC 04' footage (while revisiting the Seattle WTO issue) than some of the focus on terminology that people might not understand. I think establishing the history of detainment facilities for protesters would have been a perfect topic for the film.

With this week's release of Alex Jones' latest film "Police State 4: The Rise of Fema" I felt it fitting to review all 4 films this week. I am combining the first three films, known collectively as the "Police State" trilogy into one review, since I recommend them to be watched together.

"Police State: 2000" was Alex Jones' breakout in investigative journalism on the closing grid of police and military operations in our lands. Alex goes around showing how many of these enforcers are unaware of the checks and balances that our constitution and federal law would have in place to prevent the types of tyranny in place. Interviews with officials like San Antonio Police Chief Al Phillipus on Federal "police" intrusion into localities were things nearly unheard of at the time of the film's release. The "On the Scene" footage of military, in American streets and training to round up American citizens is undeniable. We see the various excuses from seat belts, to catching drunks, that "enforcers" will use to assert authority. But ultimately, the issue is shown clearly, about 20 minutes into the film. The failed "Nazi Excuse" of "Just following Orders" is way too frequently the excuse for this behavior from those who would falsely use the slogan "Protect and Serve." At the time of the film, many of these operations were labeled as "Training" but the subsequent films show that the incrimentalism of posse comatatus violations have only served to warm the people to the idea of Military, Federal, and even Foreign Agents on the streets. Disturbing is the footage of Local police working with US and foreign military doing urban warfare and emergency response drills, by kicking in doors and shooting first, interacting with actors and local volunteers who scream “I'm an American,” “We need to get paid,” “We Want Food,” “I need to speak with your commanding officer,” and “I have rights.” along with loudspeakers telling the people to “remain calm so that we may process you into the camps faster.”

“Police State 2: The Takeover” is a fitting sequel, however, Instead of military training and the federalization of police, instead this film takes its heavy focus towards Agents Provocateur and how they enable martial law style tactics to be enacted. Alex shows you news reports out of Seattle's WTO protests, where Agents Provocateur were allowed to continue to reign in destruction even with a heavy police presence, and then the area was placed on lock down as a reactionary tactic. A suspension of the first amendment, thanks to a city council vote to declare a state of emergency. Meanwhile those responsible for the real violence and destruction got free rent from the city's low income housing. Those rounded up for “improper assembly” were taken to a federal “prisoner processing camp” at Sand Point. Which leads Alex into how federally funded public schools could be used for these purposes, and into the issue of federalism of the school systems through special crime watch programs. Alex then continues the expose from the first film, showing new footage of urban warfare drills and police/military collaborative checkpoints.

"Police State 3: Total Enslavement" is almost an odd film out. It may have been decent when it was released, however, there seems to be a complete lack of visual integrity and focus on topic. Which can be a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, Alex throws a ton of Information in, it is more random than topical. All in all this movie plays out like one of Alex's daily shows in modern times. Alex throws almost every topic that has to do with control grids in this film, through news reports on video or on paper. This movie comes off as more alarmist, partly because there isn't really anything special that this covers. This goes into federalism, globalism, microchips, FCC takeovers of radio & TV, cameras on the streets, and other “smart” technology. This film is more about the “1984” side of these issues, which, to some is harder to source and prove in a believable manner. Ultimately, I think that Alex could have waited a few more years to do the 3rd film, then he could have included some further use of the martial law type strategies that towns and their police used in the first two. It would have been great to have seen some of the RNC 04' stuff in this.

Information: 5 stars - These films have some repetitiveness in the information, however, those educated on the constitution and posse comitatus should be definately concerned about the details of our overall society reported in these films.

Source Documentation: 4 stars - While all of the information is sourced, some of the context in which evidence is alluding to can be questioned by skeptics.

Presentation Method:3 Stars - "Low budget 60-minutes-style special report" These films are of Alex sitting at a desk going through the evidence cutting to the videos and documentation

Visuals/Sound: 3Stars- What could be expected from the turn of the century independent media. It got dated fast.

Political & Social Spectrum:5 Stars- No Left or Right. Only Right and Wrong.

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: 3 Stars - Part Pollution Part Solution. A whole lot of "this is something to be afraid of" with a "get the word out" solution. I think that advice to create a movement asking the viewer to watch and video things in their own town, or to research their town's federal ties could have helped propel a more direct 3rd film and may have sped up the release of #4. If these films are to be viewed as showing us a dangerous threat to our Liberty, there should definitely be a movement toward further documentation.

Overall Wake-up-ability: 3 Stars - I hate to give these films such a low score here, but Alex does come across as an alarmist to new viewers in some of these areas due to connecting dots. I'm not saying he's wrong, but there is a difference between a town giving an abandoned building to the military for temporary use as a base for trainings operations and "The Federal Government" "taking over" a building. Both could be dangerous, but only one would imply improper use of the government. I think that the WTO Seattle compilation in the second film is the thing that makes any of this a "must see" for the modern activist.

Many questions arise when one begins to ask the question, "What is the new world order." When you ask questions, the most common are the good old who, what, when, where, why, and how.

This film goes into answering those questions. The reason these topics are thought of as a "Conspiracy Theory" is the inability for the common individual to connect the who with the why and the how. This film attempts to connect those lines for the viewer. For one to fully understand the term, you need to fully appreciate the context in which the term "Order" is used. Jason and his clips from mainstream media show the installers of this agenda in their own words. Often people confuse the word "Order" as an answer to the question of "Who." They might know wnough about the use of the term "new world order" to understand that there are secret societies involved and some might even falsely believe that "new world order" is an assigned name for groups that either have no name or have names that people are not aware of.

On the contrary, this film names these organizations and shows the viewer that the level of influence that the famous members of these groups have is undeniable. One would simply brush them off as "special interests," however, many would find it an insult to "democracy" to know about the private meetings between the Politicians, who all claim to be fighting for the people's freedom from big business, the Bankers, who claim to be trying to regulate a disordered economy to enable the people to be independent, Industry, who claim to want to provide goods and services that nations and their peoples might need, and Media, who claim to independently provide oversight of the actions of government. I often personally refer to the unified stance of these four societal structures, as the four pillars of the new world order.

As this film will show, the outcome of these sectors of society operating in a unified fashion is not only a conflict of interest, but the ultimate in elite social connections allowing to consolidate Power, Wealth, Information, and Direction of the planet. It does not take a genius to observe what might happen when a Politician, a Banker, an Industrialist, and an owner of mainstream media channels are all working toward the same goal. You wind up with, respectively, a funding mechanism, the legal ability, the industrial ability, and the public perception to carry out any agenda that you might wish to agree upon. Not only that, but these agendas can include expanding, renewing, or preserving the powers of its own membership.

The easiest way to describe this is using the term "Globalism." The term basically means standardization of all societies, communities, and laws globally. The easiest way to think of the people pushing this agenda is to think "Globalist Special Interests."

I'd say the only thing left to debate after one would see this film is whether a person believes that Jason Bermas is right in his assessment that this concept of a new world being perpetrated by the elites of the world is one of negativity and evil.

A concept which would take the elements that make up the concepts of Humanity and Sovereignty and attempt to alienate societies' preservation thereof.

A concept which would reject the concept of individuality or reject the idea that different regions of the world/different communities might look, act, or think different than the rest, requiring different types of laws, businesses, and societal structures.

Jason provides evidence of Drug smuggling, Paganism, homosexual prostitution, false flag acts of war and violence, deception through propaganda, and a policy based on depopulation, theft, and death. All under the cover that they are mostly honest, christian, civic leaders.

For me, the information in this film,(as well as others) showing the deeds of these people and their groups, paired with the celebrity knowledge of the lives of the persons involved, confirm, to an honest person, that these persons are not interested in ordering the world in a fashion that would truly be new and peaceful.

Instead, what I see is the classic throne-sitter mentality of persons who want to rule the world supposedly for its own good. Only a tyrant would believe that they are above the people in the capacity to handle doing what is right by civilization. It is comforting to know that filmmakers with an artistic capability and focus such as that of Jason Bermas would agree with my view of the motives of these people.

Information: I have never before seen a film with so much important information on the relation of Negative Globalism to Historical and 21st Century geo-politics - 5Stars

Source Documentation: Jason backs up the arguments and information with mainstream media reports, books, videos etc. There is one little quote in the film, however, which might be considered heresay about Bill Clinton's brother supposedly talking about him having a "nose like a vacuum", referring to cocaine running through Arkansas relating to Clinton having a drug habit. I am only pointing out the lack of a trusted first-hand witness of this quote, as opposed to the existing third-hand heresay. I am not making claims about the validity of the quote, partially because this is the first time I've heard it. These very small, very rare errors in sourcing can sometimes invite debunkers such as the "screw loose change" community (which Jason knows all too well) to make widespread claims diverting attention of the factual. - 3 Stars

Presentation Method: Jason starts off relating to you on a personal level, then goes into news clips, images, and documentation - 4 Stars

Visuals / Sound: The 3D rendering of images through layering movement is very attractive. Sound effects are superb. Some of his expert testimony could be a little louder in comparison to the music and sound effects of other clips – 4 Stars

Political & Social Spectrum: If you love the UN....you won't after this. The mainstream brainwashed partisans might not like this as it attacks the motives of mainstream Democrats and Republicans evenly. - 4 Stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Constitution. With the exception of his closing argument asking people to "take action" and Alex Jones popping in ¼ of the way through the film with an ad, no specific steps to action. - 4 Stars

Overall Wake-Up-Ability: Anyone that pays close attention to the details of this film and understands the sources, while still denying, is obviously in denial out of fear.- 5 Stars

Anyone who has seen the expose “The Money Masters” is familiar with the educated knowledge filmmaker Bill Still has in regards to our monetary system. In this follow-up we learn of the possibility that Frank L. Baum's “Wonderful Wizard of Oz” may have been a warning to future generations about the political struggle of monetary policy.

This film disappointed me greatly. While a potentially decent tool to get someone new interested in the concerns of monetary reform, it is really less about the ties to “The Wizard of Oz” and more about the history of politics and money in the United States.

I'm all for a history lesson, especially in our culture where people frequently forget the important things in a very short time span, with the exception of the things our controlled media would rather direct our focus on. This movie provides a great history lesson as to the debates and balance of power between banking interests and government.

I usually have a few issues with films I review, and I'm not sure how to take away how I feel about the message of this film. Mr. Still absolutely demonizes the idea of a gold backed currency in favor of a government fiat currency. However, I would hope that he understands that his narration of support for fiat currency is not the message the film would actually send out. At the end of all of the evidence he puts forth, and the warnings of “The Wizard of Oz” you come away (and even Bill himself summarizes this) thinking that the answer to monetary woes in this nation is a Silver standard.

The monetary argument is that of a currency based on one of the following principals: Fiat (fictionally inflatable value relation) vs. Creatable (physically inflatable consumable resource) vs. Scarce (limited consumable resource) vs. Precious (rare limited in-consumable resource) vs. Finite (abundant,but limited in-consumable resource). I will mention a sixth below that is rarely discussed in these types of debates.

The difference between a fiat currency and the rest is an issue of quantity. Mr. Still argues that the problems with our monetary supply are A. Who controls scarcity?, and B. Who controls quantity?.

The only difference is that Bill, and several other economists believe that the two are one in the same. However, the difference between Silver (in the Finite category above) and Gold (precious) are their ability to be controlled through scarcity. I'm not going to disagree here, because I believe that as the population of the world expands, a system based on Silver could perhaps push even a more abundant resource like Silver into the precious category. As we see with the Diamond trade, (and even in our own fiat currencies) that perception of use and value can increase perceived demand, or perceived supply decrease, which creates real demand in an effort to get a piece of a rising investment.

I will now discuss the sixth principal of value that economies are based upon. I like to group it with Fiat into a bigger category known as “ethereal” and the other valued resources are “physical.” The Sixth one is Labor. You see just as a Federal Reserve Note is not limited in quantity if you are the Federal Reserve, Labor to a large degree is not limited in “quantity” only ability and capability, which are the whole basis for the use of Labor as a resource. Just as a Fiat currency is only a service of having an inflatable means of exchange that is limited only in ability and capability. Availability do not determine value in these two methods, unless a skill of labor is in such demand that it is treated like a precious resource, but even then it is a product of ability, since most are able to be educated to perform most tasks. These are ethereal because their physical properties do not determine value. One can decide that a piece of paper with ink or an hour of labor is worth $1 or $1000 by simply assigning what it needs to be worth using supply side thinking.

Physical resources on the other hand are demand side thinking. Their physical properties and quantity determine their value. An ounce of Silver will always be worth an ounce of Silver, only the demand for silver can change that price.

The other part of Bill's rejection of the Gold Standard for Fiat is that Government is supposed to be an institution of the people, and that a government controlled fiat system that eliminates banker influence allows the people through government to control the value of their currency.

He acknowledges that politicians do have the incentive to improperly hyperinflate or deflate the currency under that system, but pledges that it would be better than a gold system where deflation is controlled by monied interests who are already in control of resources. And that only the way in which banking money is created affects the system.

I feel that if they are already in control of resources, then their influence is still there even if they do not have the official powers. I think that is an argument that this film even supports. If we've went through this debate several times in this nation already, then why has it not went away? Because banks still have influence over the market and over the scarcity and the value of goods. With that power, you have leverage politically against any politician's effort to protect a system of freedom. I argue that the politicians in Washington are too “modernized” into being a tool of the corporatocracy, and lack the political fortitude to put their political advancement in jeopardy for the sake of values. My answer? State currencies. This is why all of these “Democrats” are afraid to make a real decision about the war on terror, because they are afraid the political implications that doing the right thing will make them appear politically “soft” against the “evil people.” This is why “Tea Partiers” are afraid to purposefully alienate “Republicans” and “neo-cons” because they falsely believe that their independent movement is being accepted by a mainstream system, when a real examination can see the mechanisms at work.

My argument is that you need competing, decentralized currencies, ethereal and physical, supply side and demand side, for in order for a tyrannical institution to control both supply and demand side of a sector of the economy, it also needs a mechanism for driving demand, such as the Diamond or Oil cartels. For example, Texas can have a Gold or Silver backed currency, Alaska an Oil backed currency, Missouri a food backed dollar, Kansas a Fiat currency, all to be legal tender of the United States Union trade-able to banks across state lines, but the control will be in different sectors of the economy. This, however would be unconstitutional due to the Gold/Silver States' clause of the Constitution. (that is also not followed under the FRN system) However, we can still advocate for decentralization and competition between currencies which are the important factors here.

You see to control an economy, you must control both supply and demand. The reason bankers have such great power is that they have controlled demand of the Federal Reserve Note through Legal Tender laws. If a business owner is able to mandate that his store will only accept gold coins, then the power of a Fiat currency supplier is taken away. Much of the Demand side is perception. This is why economies are becoming global. The labor movement of the 20th century had power because they controlled the demand for their skill, and therefore had leverage to negotiate the value of that labor. Much of demand-side economics is disappearing in our global economy because of our ability and willingness to do business with unregulated markets. To the average American, it begins to matter less and less the standards by which goods are made in comparison to their ability to acquire it. Chinese goods are made with practically slave labor, in very poor quality, but we refuse to pay twice the price for morally and quality made goods. This is a 100% perception issue.

Just as over-regulation on smoking became popular, while many complained of the price increases, the prices have actually stayed quite sane in comparison to the regulations. Why is this? Because of decreased demand due to the majority of the public turning their back on smoking as a desirable habit. The reason I mention this, is the fact that the bankers have the power and wealth, so they have the influence. You can take the ability to create money, but they've never had the power to create wealth, only to steal it through fiat. Well, as even this movie admits several times, that once you take the power from the bankers, if they still maintain their assets, then they maintain their influence on the Military Industrial Complex, the media, the politicians, and it's only a matter of time before they are in control again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result. Lets break the cycle of Government and Banks trading bureaucracies over fiat and cartel-controlled currency systems, and repeal these damn Legal Tender laws.

Information: A Jam packed history lesson on all of the currency fights of our lands dating back to the colonist era. Great history of Monetary policy without using “big words”. - 3 Stars

Source Documentation: Experts in finance discussing these issues, although most seem bias against a gold standard - 2 Stars

Presentation Method: History Lesson - 3 Stars

Visuals / Sound: Nothing Flashy, Just the facts, Ma'am - 3 Stars

Political & Social Spectrum: Only slant is the continuous use of the phrase “The gold bugs believe...”- 4 Stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Constitution. While I may not agree with his ideas, it's a start and a step in the right direction. Only thing missing is steps to take to affect change.- 4 Stars

Overall Wake-Up-Ability: People might be upset that this is more about History than about the hidden symbolism within a pop culture icon that this is advertised to expose. Very unfortunate that Legal Tender laws are not exposed. - 2 Stars

Friday, April 9, 2010

I Recently have received the Planned Parenthood/ADVOCATES State candidates' survey. I have been very much looking forward to completing surveys of this type. However, due to the extreme bias nature of the questions, I have found it nearly improbable that anyone could take this survey honestly and in a serious fashion.

The reason I am being so harsh is that I have found much of the language within your survey very contradictory to itself. The wording of this survey at times is very exact or very broad. Sometimes both broad and exact in the same clause.

(For example: “Oppose a ban on abortion procedures that does not include an exception for the woman's life and health?” at first glance the narrow word “life” would appear to be advocating abortion in severe medical conditions. However, the simple inclusion of the broad word “health” creates the potential implication of a very broad definition of health that could include mental health, stomach cramps, vomiting, etc. which are all natural side effects of pregnancy.)

It is clear that this is perhaps an attempt to confuse a candidate into believing that they are voicing their support for a moderate issue, when the same answers can be interpreted to mean very extreme beliefs in regards to the rights of females and when the killing of a fetus should be tolerated by a society.

First, let me start off by saying that you question a candidate's support of a woman's “Access to information,” “Access to Medical Care,” and the like. However, the section that includes question 17 and 18 “Government Intrusion In Medical Decisions” makes it clear that instead of having complete information about the decision a family is about to make, your organization would rather have a woman be educated by Planned Parenthood and the FDA approved pharmaceutical advertising materials.

I support a woman's access to information regarding pregnancy options. But I think that information would also include what any side effects of any drug or procedure could mean to her, information about gestation, phone numbers to adoption agencies, and any other information or education that would support a live birth option.

While I do support a woman being able to make medical decisions, I have personally met many families whose lives have been altered by the side effects of certain types of FDA approved birth control and vaccines, including my own wife, and find it very dangerous that an organization such as Planned Parenthood would have so many questions regarding taxpayer support of its services, yet find so intrusive the regulations that taxpayers would require for oversight of how that money is being spent on dramatic family decisions. It would do your organization well to remember that when you use the term “Government” that it also means “Taxpayer.” I find it clear from the several law firm advertisements on daytime television, that our pharmaceutical industry and FDA is in no way perfect when it comes to the safety of our medications, and for Planned Parenthood to use the FDA as a guide is not progressive thinking. And it is also clear that any organization requesting government funding for their services should not be opposed to following guidelines to ensure that the mental condition of their patient is one of a sound, educated, individual.

While on the subject of the “Government Intrusion” section of your survey, let me address the first phrase: “Planned Parenthood believes that the decision to have an abortion is best left to the woman in consultation with her loved ones and her physician....”

If this were a true statement, then if that person was a child, her loved ones would be her parents. Your question number 7, asking for a candidate's support of underage contraceptive services without parental consent, would show that Planned Parenthood would rather the child believe that Planned Parenthood were her loved ones, and not her parents. As long as an adult is responsible for the actions of their underage child, it becomes ever important that the parent be allowed access to all of the information available regarding the education and medical care of that child, and be given the opportunity to influence their own child's decisions regarding the several types of medication and contraceptives on the market, for the child's own safety.

Onto the subject of the Morning After Pill and Abortion. I do not believe that the two are medically one in the same, but morally they are very close. While men and women are very different, our nation's Constitution has made equal protection under the law, the law of the land. When a man's reproductive decisions are brought up in a court of law, he finds that the rule of thumb is that he is responsible for when, where, and who he chooses to mate with, and must face any consequences of this decision that may arise from the time of the decision to mate to the time of his death. Many would advocate the use of these two forms of birth control for merely socioeconomic reasons. Such “socioeconomic” “escapes” from the aforementioned responsibility toward the decisions to mate, are not only bias against males, but is also a very unfortunate precedent in regards to responsibility in our society, that should instead be discouraged, educated against, and only used in extreme measures. Education and preparation is the responsible choice, the widespread application and availability of the “oops” option as socioeconomic birth control is the irresponsible, sad choice for the modern intelligent woman.

Which brings me to the Rape/Health issue. While I do consider myself pro-life, I do believe in the right to defend one's own life from the life of another, including one's own growing child. However, these complications should be high risk, and a decision not made lightly. In regards to Rape, I do support the limited use of the morning after pill. I think Abortion in the case of Rape should be the final option after the woman has declined or received mental health services to aid her in coping with the trauma, and declined the possibility to adopt. Rushing to a decision to abort after such a life-traumatizing event is very dangerous for the long-term mental health care of an individual.

Again, with the inclusion of your “Government Intrusion” section, another contradiction would be found in your “Refusal Clauses” section. I don't believe government should intrude in the decision of a business owner to do business as they would choose within reasonable context of regulatory law. If a physician would like to prescribe a medication that is socially controversial, it would allow for those in support of that medication to compile a short list of pharmacies that do sell, and allow for the free market to let those pharmacies to gain advertisement for their willingness to do more business. I would hope that Planned Parenthood would rather support someone willing to ensure access to a woman's care than to force that business upon a business owner in opposition to Planned Parenthood's beliefs.

Ultimately, other than for my knowledge of some of the information I've heard about Eugenics, I am not completely against the idea of Planned Parenthood nor against some of the beliefs that the organization stands for. In fact, I'd like to think of myself as moderate-conservative on most social issues. However, your survey has made it impossible to be a moderate in the eyes of your organization and I will gladly feel comfortable with any endorsements you may give to my opponents in the 2010 51st District Missouri State Representative election.

Thank you for your time,
Kevin L. Kobe
Libertarian Candidate
Missouri State Representative District 51